HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jason Schubert Report Date: June 19, 2007
Email: jschubert@cstx.gov Meeting Date: June 26, 2007
Project Number: 07-00500123
APPLICANT: James S. Flex II
REQUEST: Side Street Setback Variance
LOCATION: 500 Cooner Street
PURPOSE: For the reconstruction of a portion of a single family home.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Status of Applicant: Owner of the property
Property Owner: James S. Flex II
Applicable
Ordinance Section: UDO Section 5.2, Residential Dimensional Standards
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Zoning and Land Use
• Subject
Property: R-2, Duplex Residential, currently developed as single family home.
• North: Across Cooner Street: R-2, Duplex Residential, currently developed as a
duplex.
• South: C-1, General Commercial, currently developed as a shopping center and
office complex.
• East: R-2, Duplex Residential, currently developed as a duplex.
• West: Across MacArthur Street: R-2, Duplex Residential, currently developed as a
duplex.
Frontage: The subject property is a corner lot and has frontage on Cooner Street
(60 feet) and MacArthur Street (152 feet), both residential streets.
Access: The property currently has access from MacArthur Street. The
neighboring duplex property to the east on Cooner also has access from
MacArthur Street through a separate driveway on the southern portion of
the subject property.
Topography &
Vegetation: The property slopes to the east and south of the property. The property is
lightly vegetated.
Flood Plain: Not within the floodplain.
VARIANCE INFORMATION
Background: This request was brought about when a building inspector recognized
construction activity occurring on the subject property. The activity was
significant enough to require a building permit but an application had not
been submitted and a stop work order was issued. The applicant has
stated that his original intent was to do some minor repair work but he
realized that much more needed to be replaced after the work had begun.
It appears that the three bedrooms along the western side of the house
were not removed in entirety but each has had significant portions
replaced. Since the work included structural alteration, the structure is
required to meet current ordinance and setbacks.
Current ordinance requires a side street setback of 15 feet. The
applicant is requesting a side street setback variance of 9 feet to
reconstruct the home on its original location, approximately 6 feet from
the property line on MacArthur Street.
ANALYSIS
Special Conditions: The applicant stated that the "house was built in this exact spot in 1937"
which predates the City's incorporation in 1938 and the property's
annexation into the City in 1951. The applicant also states that "the new
building line [setback] was adopted in recent years. 'Repairing' where it is
does not harm the easement [setback]."
Hardships: The applicant has stated that the denial of this request is a hardship as it
"would eliminate all three bedrooms" as they would only be about 4 feet
deep. "Thus, the house would be a total loss when you just need to repair
'rot'."
Alternatives: The applicant did not identify any alternatives.
Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variance request. Though the age of the
structure predates City regulation, its age is not unique to the general
vicinity. Based on the situation, Staff also feels that the hardship was a
result of the applicant's own actions. When additional structural work was
realized, the applicant should have sought a building permit or consult
with staff regarding the applicability of the ordinance. If approved, the
variance will allow the continuation of a non-conforming use, a single
family residence in a R-2, duplex zoning district. Furthermore, side street
setbacks are intended to provide protection when up against a street and
only a setback of 6 feet would then be in effect if the property were to
redevelop.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Ordinance Intent: Building setback requirements usually allow for some degree of control
over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These
standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property
values.
Similar Requests: None identified.
Number of Property
Owners Notified: 21
Responses Received: Four responses were received prior to completion of the staff report.
Two were in support to the remodeling work being done in the area and
two in opposition due to concern with density and visibility at the
intersection.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Small Area Map and Aerial Map
2. Application & Supplemental Materials
3. Applicant's Photos
4. Site Survey